when he finds it; and upon property whose possession has been denied, if the one denying it acknowledges it; and so on. Thus, the ability to pay is not considered in determining whether it is obligatory. Rather, zakah is due even when one is unable to pay it, though payment is not required until one becomes able to do so.

His statement, “nor the continued existence of the property,” means that the continued existence of the property is not a condition for zakah to become obligatory. Thus, if the property is destroyed after a full lunar year has elapsed and zakah has become due on it, he remains liable for the zakah whether he was negligent or not, because it became due and turned into a debt owed by him.

Accordingly, if a person liable for zakah possesses trade goods upon which a full lunar year has elapsed, and their zakah amounts to 10,000 riyals, then his shop burns down and not a single dirham remains, the author’s view is that he remains liable, because the continued existence of the property is not considered in determining its obligation.

The sound view on this matter is that if he acted wrongfully or was negligent, he is liable; but if he neither acted wrongfully nor was negligent, then he bears no liability. This is because, after zakah becomes due, it is held by him as a trust; and a trustee is not liable when he has neither acted wrongfully nor been negligent.

If a poor person were to leave some dirhams with someone for safekeeping, and they were destroyed while in the custodian’s possession without wrongdoing or negligence on his part, he would not be required to compensate the poor person for his property. Zakah is even more deserving of this ruling, especially since the poor person does not acquire ownership of zakah except through the zakah-payer. So how can he be held liable when he has neither acted wrongfully nor been negligent?

If, however, he acted wrongfully—for example, by placing the property in a location where its destruction was likely—then he is liable for whatever property is destroyed after zakah has become due.

Likewise, if he was negligent by delaying its payment without a valid religious excuse, and the property is destroyed, then he is liable for the zakah.

But if he neither acted wrongfully nor was negligent, and was ready to pay it at the time of